Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Contest: Win “The Universe: Our Solar System” in Blu-ray


A new giveaway opportunity! This time it is the Blu-ray edition of The Universe: Our Solar System.

The Blu-ray edition of the History Channel’s The Universe consists of 10 episodes from the first season, and uses cutting-edge computer-generated imagery to bring distant planets and faraway stars up close. We’ve long been fascinated with the sky and outerspace, and in this series, history and science collide to investigate all we know about the Universe.

To win, send an email to [email protected] with “Solar System” in the subject line. Fraser will randomly pick one email as the winner. Deadline is Monday, August 30 at 12 pm PDT.

Find out about The Universe: Our Solar System at this link.

And by the way, the winner of the new book about the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, “The Grand and Bold Thing” by Ann Finkbeiner, was Irfaan Hamdulay from Cape Town, South Africa. Congrats!

This is a two-disc set:

DISC 1: Secrets of the Sun / Mars: The Red Planet / The End of the Earth: Deep Space Threats To Our Planet / Jupiter: The Giant Planet / The Moon

DISC 2: Spaceship Earth / The Inner Planets: Mercury & Venus / Saturn: Lord of the Rings / Alien Galaxies / Life and Death of a Star

In this series you can witness the sun’s birth at the dawn of our solar system, and its death, billions of years in the future; explore the possibility of a human settlement on Mars; and learn about the devastating threats posed by the meteorites, comets, and asteroids that routinely collide with Earth.

Each of the 44-minute episodes begins with a general introduction of subjects ranging from the sun to individual planets. Each topic is then broken down into a series of segments that detail specific ideas, theories, or components integral to the understanding of the main topic as well as historical material, current studies and theories, and projections of potential future events and scientific advances.

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Our Solar System: Now 2 Million Years Older

Why Do Planets Orbit the Sun
The Solar System

Our solar system is beautiful and aging gracefully, but it might be even older than we originally thought, by as much as 2 million years. A group of scientists analyzed lead isotopes within a 1.49-kilo (3.2-pound) meteorite found in the Moroccan desert in 2004 and found evidence that suggests the mineral was formed 4.56 billion years ago, making the meteorite the oldest object ever found. This finding is between 300,000 and 1.9 million years older than previous estimates.

Marking the age of the Solar System has been defined as the time of formation of the first solid grains in the nebular disc surrounding the proto-Sun, and this has been done previously dating calcium–aluminium-rich inclusions in meteorites.

The team, led by Audrey Bouvier and Meenakshi Wadhwa of Arizona State University’s the Center for Meteorite Studies, looked at the extent to which uranium-238 and uranium-235 isotopes had decayed into their daughter isotopes lead-207 and lead-206.

Previous studies that dated the solar system looked at the Efremovka and Allende meteorites found in Kazakhstan in 1962 and Mexico in 1969, respectively.

While the timing may not seem like a big difference for something that is billions of years old, Bouvier said in New Scientist that it could make a difference when pinning down the conditions that led to the solar system’s formation, and those needed for other life-friendly planetary systems to form.

Their study was published by the journal Nature Geoscience.

Nature paper: Bouvier, A. & Wadhwa, M. Nature Geosci. advance online publication doi:10.1038/NGEO941 (2010).

Sources: New Scientist, PhysOrg

Posted on by Tammy Plotner

Clockwork Planets

Bottoms up! Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Venus, Mars...

[/caption]

While the Perseid meteor shower has been putting on quite a show, there’s an awesome “no telescope needed” eye-catching apparition that only requires a clear western skyline. If you haven’t been watching the planets – Mercury, Saturn, Venus and Mars – line up like clockwork, then don’t despair. You have a few more days yet!

While the uniformed all-too-often see “signs of bad portent” in a planetary alignment, the rest of us know this is a perfectly normal function of our solar system called a conjunction. This is a simple positional alignment as seen (usually from Earth’s viewpoint) from any given vantage point. The world isn’t going to end, the oceans aren’t going to rise… and Mars is darn-sure not going to be the size of the Moon. All alignments of at least two celestial bodies are merely coincidental and we even have a grand name for what’s happening – an appulse.

When planets are involved, their near appearance usually happens in the same right ascension. They really aren’t any closer to each other than what their orbital path dictates – it just appears that way. In the same respect, there is also conjunction in ecliptical longitude. But, if the planet nearer the Earth should happen to pass in front of another planet during a conjunction it’s called a syzygy!

One thing is for sure… You don’t have to be a syzy-genius to simply enjoy the show and the predictable movements of our solar system. Just find an open western skyline and watch as twilight deepens. Tonight the Moon will be directly south of Venus and over the next couple of days the planetary alignment will gradually separate as brilliant Venus seems to hold its position, while Mars, Saturn and Mercury drift north. Enjoy the show! Because just like the yearly Mars/Moon Myth?

It happens like clockwork…

Many, many thanks to the incredible Shevill Mathers for providing us with this breathtaking photo. (Do you know just how hard it is to get a shot like that without over or under exposing? I dare you to try it…) Every fox has a silver lining!

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

The Earth and Moon May Have Formed Later Than Previously Thought

The collision between "Proto-Earth" and Theia, from which the Earth and Moon were created 4,500-4,400 million years ago. Both planets had a massive iron core when they collided and created the Moon and Earth.

[/caption]

The Earth and Moon were created as the result of a giant collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. Until now it was thought to have happened when the solar system was 30 million years old or approximately 4.5 billion years ago. But new research shows that the Earth and Moon may have formed much later – perhaps up to 150 million years after the formation of the solar system.

“We have determined the ages of the Earth and the Moon using tungsten isotopes, which can reveal whether the iron cores and their stone surfaces have been mixed together during the collision,” said Tais W. Dahl, from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in collaboration with professor David J. Stevenson from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

The planets in the solar system were created by collisions between planetary embryos orbiting the newborn sun. In the collisions the small planets congealed together and formed larger and larger planets. When the gigantic collision occurred that ultimately formed the Earth and Moon, it happened at a time when both planetary bodies had a core of metal (iron) and a surrounding mantle of silicates (rock). But when did it happen and how did it happen? The collision took place in less than 24 hours and the temperature of the Earth was so high (7000º C), that both rock and metal must have melted in the turbulent collision. But were the stone mass and iron mass also mixed together?

The age of the Earth and Moon can be dated by examining the presence of certain elements in the Earth’s mantle. Hafnium-182 is a radioactive substance, which decays and is converted into the isotope tungsten-182. The two elements have markedly different chemical properties and while the tungsten isotopes prefer to bond with metal, hafnium prefers to bond to silicates, i.e. rock.

It takes 50-60 million years for all hafnium to decay and be converted into tungsten, and during the Moon forming collision nearly all the metal sank into the Earth’s core. But did all the tungsten go into the core?

“We have studied to what degree metal and rock mix together during the planet forming collisions. Using dynamic model calculations of the turbulent mixing of the liquid rock and iron masses we have found that tungsten isotopes from the Earth’s early formation remain in the rocky mantle,” said Tahl.

The new studies imply that the moon forming collision occurred after all of the hafnium had decayed completely into tungsten.

“Our results show that metal core and rock are unable to emulsify in these collisions between planets that are greater than 10 kilometers in diameter and therefore that most of the Earth’s iron core (80-99 %) did not remove tungsten from the rocky material in the mantle during formation” said Dahl.

The result of the research means that collision that created the Earth and the Moon may have occurred as much as 150 million years after the formation of the solar system, much later than the 30 million years that was previously thought.

The research results have been published in the scientific journal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

From a University of Copenhagen press release.

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – The Nice Way To Build A Solar System

When considering how the solar system formed, there are a number of problems with the idea of planets just blobbing together out of a rotating accretion disk. The Nice model (and OK, it’s pronounced ‘niece’ – as in the French city) offers a better solution.

In the traditional Kant/Laplace solar nebula model you have a rotating protoplanetary disk within which loosely associated objects build up into planetesimals, which then become gravitationally powerful centres of mass capable of clearing their orbit and voila planet!

It’s generally agreed now that this just can’t work since a growing planetesimal, in the process of constantly interacting with protoplanetary disk material, will have its orbit progressively decayed so that it will spiral inwards, potentially crashing into the Sun unless it can clear an orbit before it has lost too much angular momentum.

The Nice solution is to accept that most planets probably did form in different regions to where they orbit now. It’s likely that the current rocky planets of our solar system formed somewhat further out and have moved inwards due to interactions with protoplanetary disk material in the very early stages of the solar system’s formation.

It is likely that within 100 million years of the Sun’s ignition, a large number of rocky protoplanets, in eccentric and chaotic orbits, engaged in collisions – followed by the inward migration of the last four planets left standing as they lost angular momentum to the persisting gas and dust of the inner disk. This last phase may have stabilised them into the almost circular, and only marginally eccentric, orbits we see today.

The hypothesized collision between 'Earth Mk 1' and Theia may have occurred late in rocky planet formation creating the Earth as we know it with its huge Moon of accreted impact debris

Meanwhile, the gas giants were forming out beyond the ‘frost line’ where it was cool enough for ices to form. Since water, methane and CO2 were a lot more abundant than iron, nickel or silicon – icy planetary cores grew fast and grew big, reaching a scale where their gravity was powerful enough to hold onto the hydrogen and helium that was also present in abundance in the protoplanetary disk. This allowed these planets to grow to an enormous size.

Jupiter probably began forming within only 3 million years of solar ignition, rapidly clearing its orbit, which stopped it from migrating further inward. Saturn’s ice core grabbed whatever gases Jupiter didn’t – and Uranus and Neptune soaked up the dregs. Uranus and Neptune are thought to have formed much closer to the Sun than they are now – and in reverse order, with Neptune closer in than Uranus.

And then, around 500 million years after solar ignition, something remarkable happened. Jupiter and Saturn settled into a 2:1 orbital resonance – meaning that they lined up at the same points twice for every orbit of Saturn. This created a gravitational pulse that kicked Neptune out past Uranus, so that it ploughed in to what was then a closer and denser Kuiper Belt.

The result was a chaotic flurry of Kuiper Belt Objects, many being either flung outwards towards the Oort cloud or flung inwards towards the inner solar system. These, along with a rain of asteroids from a gravitationally disrupted asteroid belt, delivered the Late Heavy Bombardment which pummelled the inner solar system for several hundred million years – the devastation of which is still apparent on the surfaces of the Moon and Mercury today.

Then, as the dust finally settled around 3.8 billion years ago and as a new day dawned on the third rock from the Sun – voila life!

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – One Potato, Two Potato

Sometimes it’s good to take a break from mind-stretching cosmology models, quantum entanglements or events at 10-23 seconds after the big bang and get back to some astronomy basics. For example, the vexing issue of the potato radius. 

At the recent 2010 Australian Space Science Conference, it was proposed by Lineweaver and Norman that all naturally occurring objects in the universe adopt one of five basic shapes depending on their size, mass and dynamics. Small and low mass objects can be considered Dust – being irregular shapes governed primarily by electromagnetic forces. 

Next up are Potatoes, being objects where accretion by gravity begins to have some effect, though not as much as in the more massive Spheres – which, to quote the International Astronomical Union’s second law of planets, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape. 

Objects of the scale of molecular dust clouds will collapse down into Disks where the sheer volume of accreting material means that much of it can only rotate in a holding pattern around and towards the centre of mass. Such objects may evolve into a star with orbiting planets (or not), but the initial disk structure seems to be a mandatory step in the formation of objects at this scale. 

At the galactic scale you may still have disk structures, such as a spiral galaxy, but usually such large scale structures are too diffuse to form accretion disks and instead cluster in Halos – of which the central bulge of a spiral galaxy is one example. Other examples are globular clusters, elliptical galaxies and even galactic clusters. 

The proposed five major forms that accumulated matter adopts in our universe. Credit: Lineweaver and Norman.

The authors then investigated the potato radius, or Rpot, to identify the transition point from Potato to Sphere, which would also represent the transition point from small celestial object to dwarf planet. Two key issues emerged in their analysis. 

Firstly, it is not necessary to assume a surface gravity of a magnitude necessary to generate hydrostatic equilibrium. For example, on Earth such rock crushing forces only act at 10 kilometres or more below the surface – or to look at it another way you can have a mountain on Earth the size of Everest (9 kilometres), but anything higher will begin to collapse back towards the planet’s roughly spheroid shape. So, there is an acceptable margin where a sphere can still be considered a sphere even if it does not demonstrate complete hydrostatic equilibrium across its entire structure. 

Secondly, the differential strength of molecular bonds affects the yield strength of a particular material (i.e. its resistance to gravitational collapse). 

On this basis, the authors conclude that Rpot for rocky objects is 300 kilometres. However, Rpot for icy objects is only 200 kilometres, due to their weaker yield strength, meaning they more easily conform to a spheroidal shape with less self-gravity. 

Since Ceres is the only asteroid with a radius that is greater than Rpot for rocky objects we should not expect any more dwarf planets to be identified in the asteroid belt. But applying the 200 kilometre Rpot for icy bodies, means there may be a whole bunch of trans-Neptunian objects out there that are ready to take on the title.

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

How Common are Solar Systems Like Ours?

Solar system montage. Credit: NASA

On the whole, we’d like to think we’re special, but we also hope we aren’t alone in the Universe. Astronomers have been trying to figure out just how common solar systems like ours are across the cosmos, and during one moment of epiphany one scientist figured out how to make the calculations. It took a worldwide collaboration of astronomers to do the work, but they concluded that about 10 – 15 percent of stars in the universe host systems of planets like our own, with several gas giant planets in the outer part of the solar system.

“Now we know our place in the universe,” said Ohio State University astronomer Scott Gaudi. “Solar systems like our own are not rare, but we’re not in the majority, either.”

The find comes from a collaboration headquartered at Ohio State called the Microlensing Follow-Up Network (MicroFUN), which searches the sky for extrasolar planets.

MicroFUN astronomers use gravitational microlensing — which occurs when one star happens to cross in front of another as seen from Earth. The nearer star magnifies the light from the more distant star like a lens. If planets are orbiting the lens star, they boost the magnification briefly as they pass by.

During his talk at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington, DC today, Gaudi said, “Planetary microlensing basically is looking for planets you can’t see around stars you can’t see.”

This method is especially good at detecting giant planets in the outer reaches of solar systems — planets analogous to our own Jupiter.

This latest MicroFUN result is the culmination of 10 years’ work — and one sudden epiphany, explained Gaudi and Andrew Gould, professor of astronomy at Ohio State.

Ten years ago, Gaudi wrote his doctoral thesis on a method for calculating the likelihood that extrasolar planets exist. At the time, he concluded that less than 45 percent of stars could harbor a configuration similar to our own solar system.

Then, in December of 2009, Gould was examining a newly discovered planet with Cheongho Han of the Institute for Astrophysics at Chungbuk National University in Korea. The two were reviewing the range of properties among extrasolar planets discovered so far, when Gould saw a pattern.

“Basically, I realized that the answer was in Scott’s thesis from 10 years ago,” Gould said. “Using the last four years of MicroFUN data, we could add a few robust assumptions to his calculations, and we could now say how common planet systems are in the universe.”

The find boils down to a statistical analysis: in the last four years, the MicroFUN survey has discovered only one solar system like our own — a system with two gas giants resembling Jupiter and Saturn, which astronomers discovered in 2006 and reported in the journal Science in 2008.

“We’ve only found this one system, and we should have found about eight by now — if every star had a solar system like Earth’s,” Gaudi said.

The slow rate of discovery makes sense if only a small number of systems — around 10 percent — are like ours, they determined.

“While it is true that this initial determination is based on just one solar system and our final number could change a lot, this study shows that we can begin to make this measurement with the experiments we are doing today,” Gaudi added.

As to the possibility of life as we know it existing elsewhere in the universe, scientists will now be able to make a rough guess based on how many solar systems are like our own.

Our solar system may be a minority, but Gould said that the outcome of the study is actually positive.

“With billions of stars out there, even narrowing the odds to 10 percent leaves a few hundred million systems that might be like ours,” he said.

At the AAS conference today, Gaudi was awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy.

Source: AAS, EurekAlert

Posted on by Fraser Cain

Planets Fact Sheet

Mercury
Mass: 0.3302 x 1024 kg
Volume: 6.083 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 2439.7 km
Average diameter: 4879.4 km
Mean density: 5.427 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 4.3 km/s
Surface gravity: 3.7 m/s2
Visual magnitude: -0.42
Natural satellites: 0
Rings? – No
Semimajor axis: 57,910,000 km
Orbit period: 87.969 days
Perihelion: 46,000,000 km
Aphelion: 69,820,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 47.87 km/s
Maximum orbital velocity: 58.98 km/s
Minimum orbital velocity: 38.86 km/s
Orbit inclination: 7.00°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.2056
Sidereal rotation period: 1407.6 hours
Length of day: 4222.6 hours
Discovery: Known since prehistoric times
Minimum distance from Earth: 77,300,000 km
Maximum distance from Earth: 221,900,000 km
Maximum apparent diameter from Earth: 13 arc seconds
Minimum apparent diameter from Earth: 4.5 arc seconds
Maximum visual magnitude: -1.9

Venus
Mass: 4.8685 x 1024 kg
Volume: 92.843 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 6051.8 km
Average diameter: 12103.6 km
Mean density: 5.243 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 10.36 km/s
Surface gravity: 8.87 m/s2
Visual magnitude: -4.40
Natural satellites: 0
Rings? – No
Semimajor axis: 108,210,000 km
Orbit period: 224.701 days
Perihelion: 107,480,000 km
Aphelion: 108,940,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 35.02 km/s
Maximum orbital velocity: 35.26 km/s
Minimum orbital velocity: 34.79 km/s
Orbit inclination: 3.39°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.0067
Sidereal rotation period: 5832.5 hours
Length of day: 2802.0 hours
Discovery: Known since prehistoric times
Minimum distance from Earth: 38,200,000 km
Maximum distance from Earth: 261,000,000 km
Maximum apparent diameter from Earth: 66.0 arc seconds
Minimum apparent diameter from Earth: 9.7 arc seconds
Maximum visual magnitude: -4.6

Earth
Mass: 5.9736 x 1024 kg
Volume: 108.321 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 6,371.0 km
Average diameter: 12,742 km
Mean density: 5.515 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 11.186 km/s
Surface gravity: 9.798 m/s2
Visual magnitude: -3.86
Natural satellites: 1
Rings? – No
Semimajor axis: 149,600,000 km
Orbit period: 365.256 days
Perihelion: 147,090,000 km
Aphelion: 152,100,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 29.78 km/s
Maximum orbital velocity: 30.29 km/s
Minimum orbital velocity: 29.29 km/s
Orbit inclination: 0.00°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.0167
Sidereal rotation period: 23.9345 hours
Length of day: 24.0000 hours
Axial tilt: 23.45°

Mars
Mass: 0.64185 x 1024 kg
Volume: 16.318 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 3,389.5 km
Average diameter: 6,779 km
Mean density: 3.933 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 5.03 km/s
Surface gravity: 3.71 m/s2
Visual magnitude: -1.52
Natural satellites: 2
Rings? – No
Semimajor axis: 227,920,000 km
Orbit period: 686.980 days
Perihelion: 206,620,000 km
Aphelion: 249,230,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 24.13 km/s
Orbit inclination: 1.850°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.0935
Sidereal rotation period: 24.6229 hours
Length of day: 24.6597 hours
Axial tilt: 25.19 °
Discovery: Known since prehistoric times
Minimum distance from Earth: 55,700,000 km
Maximum distance from Earth: 401,300,000 km
Maximum apparent diameter from Earth: 25.1 arc seconds
Minimum apparent diameter from Earth: 3.5 arc seconds
Maximum visual magnitude: -2.91

Jupiter
Mass: 1,898.6 x 1024 kg
Volume: 143,128 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 69,911 km
Average diameter: 139,822 km
Mean density: 1.326 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 59.5 km/s
Surface gravity: 24.79 m/s2
Natural satellites: 63
Rings? – Yes
Semimajor axis: 778,570,000 km
Orbit period: 4,332.589 days
Perihelion: 740,520,000 km
Aphelion: 816,620,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 13.07 km/s
Orbit inclination: 1.304°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.0489
Sidereal rotation period: 9.9250 hours
Length of day: 9.9259 hours
Axial tilt: 3.13°
Discovery: Known since prehistoric times
Minimum distance from Earth: 588,500,000 km
Maximum distance from Earth: 968,100,000 km
Maximum apparent diameter from Earth: 50.1 arc seconds
Minimum apparent diameter from Earth: 29.8 arc seconds
Maximum visual magnitude: -2.94

Saturn
Mass: 568.46 x 1024 kg
Volume: 82,713 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 58,232 km
Average diameter: 116,464 km
Mean density: 0.687 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 35.5 km/s
Surface gravity: 10.44 m/s2
Natural satellites: 60
Rings? – Yes
Semimajor axis: 1,433,530,000 km
Orbit period: 10,759.22 days
Perihelion: 1,352,550,000 km
Aphelion: 1,514,500,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 9.69 km/s
Orbit inclination: 2.485°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.0565
Sidereal rotation period: 10.656 hours
Length of day: 10.656 hours
Axial tilt: 26.73°
Discovery: Known since prehistoric times
Minimum distance from Earth: 1,195,500,000 km
Maximum distance from Earth: 1,658,500,000 km
Maximum apparent diameter from Earth: 20.1 arc seconds
Minimum apparent diameter from Earth: 14.5 arc seconds
Maximum visual magnitude: 0.43

Uranus
Mass: 86.832 x 1024 kg
Volume: 6,833 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 25,362 km
Average diameter: 50,724 km
Mean density: 1.270 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 21.3 km/s
Surface gravity: 8.87 m/s2
Natural satellites: 27
Rings? – Yes
Semimajor axis: 2,872,460,000 km
Orbit period: 30,685.4 days
Perihelion: 2,741,300,000 km
Aphelion: 3,003,620,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 6.81 km/s
Orbit inclination: 0.772°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.0457
Sidereal rotation period: 17.24 hours
Length of day: 17.24 hours
Axial tilt: 97.77°
Discovery: 13 March 1781
Minimum distance from Earth: 2,581,900,000 km
Maximum distance from Earth: 3,157,300,000 km
Maximum apparent diameter from Earth: 4.1 arc seconds
Minimum apparent diameter from Earth: 3.3 arc seconds
Maximum visual magnitude: 5.32

Neptune
Mass: 102.43 x 1024 kg
Volume: 6,254 x 1010 km3
Average radius: 24,622 km
Average diameter: 49,244 km
Mean density: 1.638 g/cm3
Escape velocity: 23.5 km/s
Surface gravity: 11.15 m/s2
Natural satellites: 13
Rings? – Yes
Semimajor axis: 4,495,060,000 km
Orbit period: 60,189 days
Perihelion: 4,444,450,000 km
Aphelion: 4,545,670,000 km
Mean orbital velocity: 5.43 km/s
Orbit inclination: 1.769°
Orbit eccentricity: 0.0113
Sidereal rotation period: 16.11 hours
Length of day: 16.11 hours
Axial tilt: 28.32°
Discovery: 23 September 1846
Minimum distance from Earth: 4,305,900,000 km
Maximum distance from Earth: 4,687,300,000 km
Maximum apparent diameter from Earth: 2.4 arc seconds
Minimum apparent diameter from Earth: 2.2 arc seconds
Maximum visual magnitude: 7.78

We’ve written many articles about the Solar System. Here’s an article about how many moons there are in the Solar System, and here’s an article about the formation of the Solar System.

If you’d like more info on the Solar System, check out NASA’s Planetary Fact Sheet.

We’ve recorded several episodes of Astronomy Cast about the Solar System. Start here, Episode 49: Mercury.

Posted on by Fraser Cain

Why is Venus So Hot?

You might have heard that Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. In fact, down at the surface of Venus it’s hot enough to melt lead. But why is Venus so hot?

Three words: runaway greenhouse effect. In many ways, Venus is a virtual twin of Earth. It has a similar size, mass and gravity as well as internal composition. But the one big difference is that Venus has a much thicker atmosphere. If you could stand on the surface of Venus, you would experience 93 times the atmospheric pressure we experience here on Earth; you’d have to dive down 1 km beneath the surface of the ocean to experience that kind of pressure. Furthermore, that atmosphere is made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide. As you’ve probably heard, carbon dioxide makes an excellent greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the Sun. The atmosphere of Venus allows the light from the Sun to pass through the clouds and down to the surface of the planet, which warms the rocks. But then the infrared heat from the warmed rocks is prevented from escaping by the clouds, and so the planet warmed up.

The average temperature on Venus is 735 kelvin, or 461° C. In fact, it’s that same temperature everywhere on Venus. It doesn’t matter if you’re at the pole, or at night, it’s always 735 kelvin.

It’s believed that plate tectonics on Venus stopped billions of years ago. And without plate tectonics burying carbon deep inside the planet, it was able to build up in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide built up to the point that any oceans on Venus boiled away. And then the Sun’s solar wind carried the hydrogen atoms away from Venus, making it impossible to ever make liquid water again. The concentration of carbon dioxide just kept increasing until it was all in the atmosphere.

We’ve written many articles about Venus for Universe Today. Here’s an article about the atmosphere of Venus, and here’s an article about how to find Venus in the sky.

If you’d like more info on Venus, here’s a cool lecture about Venus and the greenhouse effect, and here’s more information on the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.

We’ve also recorded an entire episode of Astronomy Cast just about Venus. Listen here, Episode 50: Venus.

Posted on by Jon Voisey

Reexamining a Cataclysm

Image of Earth's Moon centered on the Orientale Basin taken by Galileo Spacecraft.

[/caption]

One of the legacies of the Apollo program is the rare lunar samples it returned. These samples (along with meteorites that originated from the moon and even one from Mars) can be radiometrically dated, and together they paint a picture a cataclysmic time in the history of our solar system. Over a period of time some 3.8 to 4.1 billion years ago, the moon underwent a fierce period of impacts that was the origin of most of the craters we see today. Paired with the “Nice model” (named after the French university where it was developed, not because it was pleasant in any way), which describes the migration of planets to their current orbits, it is widely held that the migration of Jupiter or one of the other gas giants migrations during this period, caused a shower of asteroids or comets to rain down upon the inner solar system in a time known as the “Late Heavy Bombardment” (LHB).

A new paper by astronomers from Harvard and the University of British Columbia disagrees with this picture. In 2005, Strom et al. published a paper in Science which analyzed the frequency of craters of various sizes on the lunar highlands, Mars, and Mercury (since these are the only rocky bodies in the inner solar system without sufficient erosion to wash away their cratering history). When comparing relatively young surfaces which had been more recently resurfaced to older ones from the Late Heavy Bombardment area, is that there were two separate, but characteristic curves. The one for the LHB era revealed a crater frequency peaking at craters near 100 km (62 miles) in diameter and dropping off rapidly to lower diameters. Meanwhile, the younger surfaces showed a nearly even amount of craters of all sizes measurable. Additionally, the LHB impacts were an order of magnitude more common than the newer ones.

The Strom et al. took this as evidence that two different populations of impactors were at work. The LHB era, they called Population I. The more recent, they called Population II. What they noticed was the current size distribution of main belt asteroids (MBAs) was “virtually identical to the Population 1 projectile size distribution”. Additionally, since the size distribution of the MBA is the same today, this indicated that the process which sent these bodies our way didn’t discriminate based on size, which would weed out that size and alter the distribution we observed today. This ruled out processes such as the Yarkovsky effect but agreed with the gravitational shove as a large body would move through the region. The inverse of this (that a process was selecting rocks to chuck our way based on size) would be indicative of Strom’s Population II objects.

However, in this paper recently uploaded to arXiv, Cuk et al. argue that the dates of many of the regions investigated by Strom et al. cannot be reliably dated and therefore, cannot be used to investigate the nature of the LHB. They suggest that only the Imbrium and Orientale basins, which have their formation dates precisely known from rocks retrieved by Apollo missions, can be used to accurately describe the cratering history during this period.

With this assumption, Cuk’s group reexamined the frequency of crater sizes for just these basins. When this was plotted for these two groups, they found that the power law they used to fit the data had “an index of -1.9 or -2 rather than -1.2 or -1.3 (like the modern asteroid belt)”. As such, they claim, “theoretical models producing the lunar cataclysm by gravitational ejection of main-belt asteroids are seriously challenged.”

Although they call into question Strom et al.’s model, they cannot propose a new one. They suggest some causes that are unlikely, such as comets (which have too low of impact probabilities). One solution they mention is that the population of the asteroid belt has evolved since the LHB which would account for the differences. Regardless, they conclude that this question is more open ended than previously expected and that more work will need to be done to understand this cataclysm.